Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. What I'm saying is in our current system, everything is tied to your job; your health insurance, your credit, obviously your income. If you don't have a job, you don't have food, you don't have housing, you don't have gas in your car.

This to me is very like when people criticize capitalism and are countered with "yet you participate in capitalism, curious!" as though that's a point. Of course I participate in it. I don't have a fucking choice. If I want to take my ethical stance that capitalism is a dehumanizing and oppressive system, how am I to do that? Go live in the fucking woods?

So maybe I have to stay at my job, even if I fundamentally disagree with it, because again, the other choices are horrific. As I said to another commenter, I'd love to hear one of you guys debating whether to continue working at Facebook on their news team, or whatever, if you have a child with chronic illness. Or maybe your wife is in treatment for depression. Hell, maybe YOU are.

I'm not saying people shouldn't do their best to act ethically. I'm saying that painting anyone who can't make those kinds of ethical stances as a complicit bastard is the worst kind of horseshit, and putting the burden of the ethics of their employers on them is ridiculous. Just because a shitty company can find enough people who can't afford to say no to develop their unethical software doesn't mean those people are then bad, especially when, again, the alternative solution is put pen to paper and make what they're doing ILLEGAL. With no room for interpretation.